W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > February 2012

RE: [css3-images] Fwd: CSS Gradient Notation

From: Brian Manthos <brianman@microsoft.com>
Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2012 02:24:13 +0000
To: Brian Manthos <brianman@microsoft.com>, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
CC: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
Message-ID: <9710FCC2E88860489239BE0308AC5D170EB58D64@TK5EX14MBXC266.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
> So, I see two technical arguments in favor of reverting the change
> and none in favor.

Also, this is inaccurate.  Just because you don't remember the repeated discussions that led to the decisions, doesn't meant that we didn't have them.  It just shows you have a very unusual selective memory (and apparently lack the will to go look up the prior discussions in the archive).


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Brian Manthos [mailto:brianman@microsoft.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2012 6:08 PM
> To: Tab Atkins Jr.; fantasai
> Cc: www-style@w3.org
> Subject: RE: [css3-images] Fwd: CSS Gradient Notation
> 
> In short, I agree with Tab here.  STOP TRYING TO CHANGE IT (BACK)
> AGAIN.
> 
> In long, I don't have the bandwidth today or tomorrow to rehash the
> argument a 7th time.  If you really want to revisit it again, I'll try
> to find some time on Friday instead of doing real work.
> 
> Sigh.
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Tab Atkins Jr. [mailto:jackalmage@gmail.com]
> > Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2012 8:57 AM
> > To: fantasai
> > Cc: www-style@w3.org
> > Subject: Re: [css3-images] Fwd: CSS Gradient Notation
> >
> > On Wed, Feb 8, 2012 at 8:34 AM, fantasai
> > <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net> wrote:
> > > So, I see two technical arguments in favor of reverting the change
> > and
> > > none in favor. Based on that I can't really justify keeping the
> 'to'.
> > > The arguments are:
> > >  1. Reverting is more compatible with existing usage out there,
> since
> > >     the older variants of linear-gradient() are compatible with the
> > >     request to not use 'to'.
> > >  2. The 'to' preposition is incompatible with the functional
> notation
> > >     principles you sent out, and the CSSWG adopted, in
> > >       http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-

> style/2012Jan/0933.html
> > >     Namely, that keywords are only to be used as a last resort for
> > >     parsing disambiguation where needed.
> > >
> > > The argument in favor of rejecting the comment is that the WG
> > discussed
> > > the issue already and made a resolution on it and therefore doesn't
> > want
> > > to reopen the issue. This is an argument, but not a technical one.
> > I'll
> > > also note we do have additional information, i.e. principle #2,
> that
> > we
> > > didn't have when we made that resolution.
> > >
> > > So, weighing the arguments, I'm uncomfortable with rejecting this
> > comment
> > > without a change.
> >
> > I'm not changing a thing in this regard without a WG resolution
> > commanding it.  We've had resolutions for the current syntax, I'm
> > happy with the current syntax, and the entire syntax *thing* has been
> > incredibly painful, which another change will not help with.
> >
> > If you can convince the WG to agree with you, I will happily make the
> > change.  You've got two weeks until CR.
> >
> > ~TJ
> >

Received on Thursday, 9 February 2012 02:24:49 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:50 GMT